Talk:Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Foreign Policy and other Criticisms[edit]

TimShell has argued on the Talk:Domestic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration page that international trade polcies, currently in the surgical subsection of the domestic policy section, belong in the foreign policy section. Would people be accepting of making a new section for international trade here? Kevin Baas | talk 15:07, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

POV Commentary

The article reads: Bush's point of view was much diffremt from the others 

to impose a tariff on imported steel, and to withdraw from global initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol, the ABM Treaty, and an international land mine treaty, has been argued as evidence that he and his administration have a policy of acting unilaterally in international affairs.

According to the Constitution, no treaty not ratified by the US Senate has the force of law, so it is impossible to "withdraw" from the Kyoto protocol regardless of the Clinton Administration's apparent desire to have the treaty ratified. It was signed by the executive at the time, but never ratified, so "withdrawal" really isn't an accurate description. It was never in force.

To characterize not adhering to a signed, but unratified treaty as engaging in "unilateral action" feels pretty editorial. A better discussion of the ABM treaty, Kyoto and the land mine treaty leaving the reader to come to his own conclusions might be more appropriate.

The point of "unilateral" is that he acts as if noone else exists; he ignores the objection, argumentation, reasoning, grievances, etc. of other nations. He even completly disregards their decisions; their legal resolutions. He is simply uncooperative to the extent of no cooperation at all. This is the reason for the term "unilateral" - it's actually much softer on bush than the much more taboo word "uncooperative", which in many ways is more appropriate. Using the word "unilateral" is being nice. He is certainly "acting alone". Is that not what unilateral action means?
(Oh, and FWIW, regarding clinton environmental initiatives and bush: bush indefinetly halted _ALL_ of clinton's environmental initiatives immediately upon taking office -Bush is the first president in u.s. history to do this.)
I think "withdrawal" is pretty clear, given, as you discribed, as we were interested, and now we are withdrawing. If it was ratified, it could not be "withdrawn" from - either it would expire or a new law would supercede it. Kevin Baas | talk 13:58, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)
On the contrary, once a treaty is ratified, a state can withdraw from it. Case in point, the N. Korean withdrawal from the NPT. This depends on the text of the treaties, but it can be done. The US did not withdraw from the treaties listed--congress did not ratify them and Bush did not give them his support. Withdrawal is not an accurate term here. It needs to be clarified that the US congress refused to ratify them with no objections from the executive. The term unilateral is a term that pundits love to throw around these days to make the US look bad, as exemplified by the pretty obviously anti-Bush ranting 3 comments up from me. "Unilateral" has no implications whatsoever about the feelings or grievences of other countries. Moreover, in an international context, who cares about the legal resolution of other nations. No nation rules the world, hence acting against another nation's laws doesn't mean we're "unilateral"--last time I checked, congress made my laws, not Ghana. If you want to debate the "unilateral" decision to withdraw from a treaty, we can. What other kind of decision can be made? Shall we make a multilateral decision to not ratify a treaty--how would that work? The word is redundant here. Moreover, to imply that the refusal of CONGRESS to ratify treaties gives Bush a "unilateral" foreign policy is ridiculous. Here you should cite actions taken by the executive without the support or consultation of foreign nations. They are two totally separate things. I think that some of you need to do a bit of reading on international relations and law before you make Wikipedia a place to rant about your political leanings--it makes it a much less reputable resource.

I think there should be something here about relations with Canada

SD6-Agent 23:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Intro[edit]

Is there any way that the intro can be cut to a few hundred words? As it is, one has to scroll down a ways to get to the table of contents. Rkevins82 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; perhaps the introduction, in this case, should not be a summary or a rough time-line of his events, but rather an actual introduction into what his general foreign policy is. This 'introduction' is a large timeline-adjusted summary of the article, which is not what an introduction should be.

Annihilatron (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madaline Albright commentary[edit]

This is pretty good, from the previous administration's last Secretary of State. --James S. 00:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas and Hezbollah[edit]

These groups should be mentioned in the article if it is to be legitimate. From the ones I have seen Bush's subpages are still "immature". They are intended to go into more depth than his main page but some do not mention things covered in decent detail in the main article. His main article and articles about related events and issues beyond that concern Bush tend to be more complete. Minutiaman 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is not mentioned at all which is a major oversight. Arniep 16:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty Withdrawals[edit]

For the George W. Bush entry, I added Treaty Withdrawals to the Foreign Policy section, and mostly just listed the main points here, because only a few treaties are mentioned. It's really late at night and I don't want to dig through textbooks and class notes, but there is a lot to be said briefly in this and that section. Thus, I edited the very end of this article, the Foreign aid component.

Would people with political science / international relations knowledge and referencing please help me to reform parts of these 2 articles, and make any other notes of what might need expanding upon. Thanks. ---Soorej 2:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding termination date[edit]

The termination dates in this article conflict with that in Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. There, I read, "On December 13, 2001, George W. Bush gave Russia notice of the United States' withdrawal from the treaty". The present article claims, "On December 14, 2001, Bush withdrew the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty". I see two problems with this: First, there's the difference between December 13 and December 14. At least one of those dates is wrong or misleading. Second, there's a difference between "giving notice of withdrawal" and "withdrawing".

Could someone more knowledgeable than I about this fix both these articles? It's a small thing, but we don't need this kinds of discrepancies challenging the credibility of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the United States announced its intent to withdraw from the ABM Treaty on 13 December 2001. The article cites this announcement, which states that under the terms of the treaty the withdrawal would become effective six months later. NPguy (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a weasel word on Iran[edit]

Please see if we can state sources, like "many experts, including Lorem Ipsum, believe that Iran is ..." Thanks, 66.215.99.224 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most biased articles I have yet to find on Wikipedia[edit]

This article is in need of major reworking. Not only is the intro poorly structured, but every piece of information within this article has a slanted POV against the Bush administration. While I am not a strong Bush advocate, I find it hard to believe that the total outcome of his foreign policy has been unidirectionally negative.

Here is an excerpt of quotes representing many of the paragraphs in the intro: "has been argued as evidence that he and his administration have a policy of acting unilaterally in international affairs." "The Bush presidency has also been marked by diplomatic tensions with the People's Republic of China and North Korea" "Bush came under criticism from European leaders for his rejection of the Kyoto treaty" "Many governments have criticized the failure of the United States to ratify the Kyoto protocol" "In July of 2002, Bush cut off all funding, approximately $34 million, for the United Nations Population Fund " "Many other women's rights groups criticized the decision " "Bush's foreign policy has been accused of being influenced by the right-wing think tank Project for the New American Century, and other neoconservative organisations. PNAC's goal is to promote "American global leadership". Critics allege that its policies are hegemonic and excessively interventionist." "Commentators such as the previous administration's last Secretary of State Madeleine Albright have been quite critical of Bush's foreign policy."

This is not to say that these things are not true, but that this article is in need of balancing. While I am not the expert needed to do such work, I do know that there is more to the Bush administration's foreign policy than simply negative aspects. Terry 01:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--The point is to give encyclopedic information, not to balance political views. If the outcome of his foreign policy was mostly negative then that is what should be written. We should not be here to control his PR or rail against him. We state what happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.211.147 (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europe subsection[edit]

Why on earth is the supposed improvement of U.S./Canada relations following the election of the Harper government mentioned in this section? Sure, Canada has the Queen of England on their currency, but isn't this a bit of a stretch? 216.251.130.70 20:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links[edit]

The following links are broken and need a replacement:

  • "See [1] for more information on the PRI."
  • "Commentators such as the previous administration's last Secretary of State Madeleine Albright have been quite critical of Bush's foreign policy. [2]"
  • "attacks, the United States refused and instead threatened the Taliban with military action. As an attack became imminent, the Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan, where he could be tried under Islamic law.[3] "
  • "The Bush Administration and its supporters claim that the war against America by al-Qaeda is ongoing, that it is unconventional, and that the "battlefield" extends into the U.S. itself.[6]"
  • "The order comes as the Bush administration's new special envoy for Sudan, Andrew Natsios, began a trip to Sudan, where he plans to meet with government officials and visit war-torn Darfur.[18]"
  • "On August 31, 2004, WTO arbitrators authorized the European Union and other leading U.S. trade partners to impose economic sanctions against the United States for violation of global trade laws. The decision by the WTO is the latest example of several recent cases where Washington has been found to be in breach of international trade rules.[21]"
  • "Most of those funds were for U.S. military operations in the two countries. [24]"

BlueAg09 (Talk) 08:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America[edit]

There is virtually nothing here about President Bush's foreign policy concerning Latin or South America. Also I have had trouble finding really any comprehensive information on this or President Bushs foreign policy in relation to Asia. If anyone finds any info be sure to include it. 216.201.48.26 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

This article's neutrality is debatable. In some ways this issue ties in with the claim that its introduction is too long. Rather than beginning with a synopsis of Bush's policies, it begins chronologically, by discussing Bush's campaign platform of a "reduction in 'nation building.'" While this fact does speak for itself, invoking that phrase so early (especially given Bush's Iraq policy) also sets up an evaluative, rather than informative, tone to the rest of the piece. This segment should belong in its own section - perhaps, "Campaign platforms: 2000 | 2004 re-election."

The second paragraph also presents some trouble. "The National Missile Defense project Bush supports is supposed to detect intercontinental ballistic missiles and to destroy them in flight. Critics doubt that the project could ever work and point out that it will cost US$53 billion from 2004 to 2009, being the largest single line item in The Pentagon's balance." Criticisms pertaining to an issue should be placed in their own, separate "Criticisms" section, not in the introduction, as again, it is an evaluative tactic.

Hope this makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.53.3 (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan and Middle East[edit]

Does anyone else have a problem with the Middle East portion that starts with Afghanistan? That country is on the Asian subcontinent, while some of the actors from the country are actually from the middle east, it is not in the middle east.[1] --Kaleo05 (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Location: Southern Asia https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html

Bush Doctrine[edit]

Hi, if anyone feels like helping out us editors on the Bush Doctrine article, it would be most helpful and welcome. We could need more quality content to help expand on the historical development, ideological foundation and policy practices from the Bush Doctrine and its formation. At the centre of the Bush Doctrine article, are the ideas - the criticism and defence of the doctrine. There is very strong theories supporting the Bush Doctrine, while these have been challenged in a crescendo throughout the George W. Bush presidency. The main difference between this article, specifically on the foreign policy, is that the Bush Doctrine article deals with the formation of the doctrine - which is set as a collection of practical policy decisions, strategy and ideology - a belief system included into the formation of the doctrine, and giving it logical, rational strength through science and proven efficiency. You are most welcome to participate on the article, and be aware that on the Talk:Bush Doctrine there have been numerous disputes. However, any contribution is helpful at this time, with so few editors on the article. See you there! ;-) Scierguy (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Shoe" incidence[edit]

(Copy from Talk:George W. Bush, [1])

To get the context I had to rely on foreign sources, in this case a German one which gives much more input about why it happened and what the attacker (if you want to call a "shoe-thrower" so *lol*) had in mind doing so. This is just plain info from my side (and of course the news channels website). So don't blame me if you don't like it but feel free to ask me if something isn't clear. Don't know how good the translation is but it's accurate (and it's not Google  :) ).

Soooo, here is some translation of a very reliable German source [2] :
    • He throws his shoes and shouts:"That's a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog."
    • To hit somebody with a shoe or just showing the shoe sole and call him a dog, an animal that is considered in the middle east as unclean (like a pig) is in the Arabic world is probably the strongest way to insult a person.
    • As Mohammed Abdul Rahman, a college of him said:"He just couldn't hold back since Mr. Bush was talking about achievements in Iraq, achievements he [Bush] accomplished (like democracy) which we just can't confirm". Just the opposite: there is no (electric) power, no provision of services and no reconstruction. "That's why he wanted to insult Bush and tell him: You're a liar and you can't deal with us in this manner." Abdul Rahman further said, "It is an irony of history: After Bush defeated Saddam Hussein in 2003, the people of Iraq slapped the dictators statue with shoes; now it is Bush who gets the shoes of the Iraqi people."

Hope it helps. I'll post this also at the Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration talk page since one editor included this incident and even so this would be the proper page to include it he did a good faith "bad" edit since he left out context (that he might not had at the time). I'd rather see it gone for the moment and reintroduced more proper at some point if there is consensus over there.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know German skin-deeply, but surely more info comes as the time passes. --Brandспойт 06:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq war in introduction...[edit]

So I don't really edit Wikipedia, but I use it quite frequently. I visited this article because I'm writing a paper on the Iraq war...and noticed that the Iraq war was not mentioned once in the very long introduction. Maybe it's just me, but I would consider the Iraq war one of the most important foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration, if not the most important. It seems obvious to me that it deserves a mention in the intro, especially if it's going to be this long. Cela (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Airstrikes[edit]

This is an attempt to begin discussion on this issue.

The information presented by User:Cgersten misrepresents the source material. His justification for the wording is a commentary by the same news paper, that is not a reliable source. I have attempted several times to remove the misquoted and non notable paragraph, but have been reverted with swift resistance. Every single decision made by a president is not notable to wikipedia, unless it was some sort of major turning, or defined his presidency. This did not, because the first source clearly states that the decision was just a continuation of policy under the Clinton Administration.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From first citation, New York Times page 1, 2nd paragraph: "The raid — carried out by more than three dozen aircraft shortly after night fell in Baghdad — represented an escalation of the long-running, low-level skirmishes between American and British jets and Iraqi forces." Also Jojhutton states: "His justification for removing items is that the commentary by the same newspaper, is not a reliable source." The source btw is the New York Times.--cgersten (talk)tuco_bad 21:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. The source you are attempting to use is a commentary, by the NYT, not a news article, therefore not a reliable source of information, as it will be slanted. You should read WP:RS.
2. As to the part about thie escalation, you seem to leave out other parts of the article, such as
- That the raid was routine.
- That it was the was the same policy as the previous administration (Clinton too struck north of the no-fly zone)
- That the strikes were far below the scale of the attacks under Clinton.
3. Every decision that a president makes is not worthy of inclusion on wikipedia, unless that decision defined his presidency or was a major turning point. The continuation of policy is hardly a turning point.
The second paragraph is entirely original research. Taking a routine news story and trying to use a routine commentary, to justify inclusion.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bush Administration stated that the raid was routine.
Strike not routine – first strike in two years beyond the no-fly zone.
Raid ordered by Bush while in office less than one month.
You should read WP:RS.
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant-minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered; News analysis of raid appeared on page 1 of the New York Times, and not refuted anywhere to my knowledge..--cgersten (talk)tuco_bad 02:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)tuco_bad 02:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some commentators have praised Bush for disdaining timidity. Some have condemned him for waging aggressive war in violation of international law. We can report facts about both views, for example with regard to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but we would not assert either opinion as fact (see WP:NPOV). The raids referred to in this paragraph aren't significant enough to merit even the presentation of pro-and-con opinions. JamesMLane t c 17:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The view posted by me was posted from a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV, if I come across a reliable different point of view, I would of course post that view also. You should too, if you find a different viewpoint. --cgersten (talk)tuco_bad 17:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is most assuredly not neutral to praise Bush for acting "without timidity", anymore than it would be neutral to condemn him for acting as a belligerent bully. Second, you don't even respond to my point about the comparative insignificance of this episode; we can't lard this article with praise and blame of every single foreign-policy decision Bush made in eight years. Third, you've now violated WP:3RR in unilaterally reverting to the version that you and you alone prefer, so I'm bringing the dispute to the attention of the admins. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cgersten reported by User:JamesMLane (Result: ) for the report. JamesMLane t c 19:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what I've been saying for a month now.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second, you don't even respond to my point about the comparative insignificance of this episode--User:JamesMLane
Think about all the subsequent events concerning Iraq over the following 25 months (Feb. 2001 - March 2003)!--cgersten(talk)--tuco_bad 01:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to including the facts about the incident. We can, where appropriate, also include facts about opinions, but I'm saying that's not appropriate here because the air strikes didn't generate huge controversy the way the 2003 invasion did. In any event, "facts about opinions" means reporting an opinion and identifying its author, not adopting the opinion by asserting it in text as fact. JamesMLane t c 02:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe then it was all a misunderstanding, because the opinion was not mine, but the authors of the page 1 NY times article of the 2nd citation.--cgersten(talk)--tuco_bad 02:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. Please read WP:NPOV, especially this section. The statement can be on the front page of the Times and still be an opinion. There is no such thing as a reliable source for an opinion, except in the narrow sense of the cited newspaper (or whatever) being reliable enough about facts that if it reports that Prime Minister X said thus-and-such, then we're confident the PM did indeed say it. JamesMLane t c 07:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions are valid if stated as such; and I stated that authors' news analysis (front page NY Times) evaluated Bush's actions, not my analysis.
If there is a different crediable opinion of Bush's action, that also should be posted.--cgersten(talk)--tuco_bad 10:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Jojhutton idolizes Bush, does not mean we should exclude an important fact about Bush’s presidency and the New York Times opinion of what the action means. (All page 1 NYT news.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should this infomation be excluded from this article as Jojhutton demands?--Cgersten (talk • contribs) tuco_bad 12:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was to remove the paragraph. Waiting a month, then putting it back in, hoping that no one would notice is disruptive.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the article and I am asking if anyone objects to the article, and what the objections are.--Cgersten (talk • contribs) tuco_bad 12:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewording doesn't excuse the fact that you added information against consensus.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still awaiting a valid reason from Jojhutton why he objects to the article, other than it might put Bush in a bad light, and Jojhutton idolizes Bush.--Cgersten (talk • contribs) tuco_bad 23:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about consensus. I see two opposed opinions and one in the middle. It doesn't look like it was resolved definitively. The question is not whether the information is true, but whether it is significant enough to be included here. In general, Wikipedia seems to err on the side of inclusion. NPguy (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first reference[edit]

What the hell is this doing as a reference? I hope no one actually believes that the "document" it leads to is real. So what point does it have in being in this article? L1ght5h0w (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "google1":

  • From Alexander Lukashenko: Wilson, Andrew (6 December 2011). "Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship". Yale University Press.
  • From Gaza Strip: Rabinowitz, Gavin (20 June 2010). "AFP: Israel to allow more 'civilian' goods into Gaza: official". Archived from the original on 25 May 2012. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
  • From List of drone strikes in Yemen: Gary D. Solis (2010). The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War. Cambridge University Press. pp. 538–47. ISBN 0-521-87088-7. Retrieved May 19, 2010.
  • From Bangladesh: Olivelle, Patrick (2006). Between the Empires: Society in India 300 BCE to 400 CE. Oxford University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-19-977507-1. Archived from the original on 3 September 2015. Retrieved 20 June 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration&oldid=1207266682"